By Rabbi David Krishef
Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a case of a judge in North Carolina who sentenced three men to 53 to 71 years in prison without the possibility of parole for stealing $3000 in money and property at gunpoint from a church during a service. They pleaded guilty to 11 counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
At sentencing, they apologized to the church members and the community. The judge, however, explained, “You didn’t just steal money from people. You took God’s money. You took the Lord’s money.”
The lower appeals court ruled that the judge was not explicitly drawing upon his religious faith but rather referring to victims' statements, and the sentence was based on "the fact that these crimes were especially serious because they involved traumatizing people at gunpoint where ordinarily they would feel safe."
Had the judge inserted his own religious faith into the sentencing, as did the judge who imposed a lengthy sentence on televangelist Jim Bakker, the sentence would have been overturned.
What do you think? Should a judge give a harsher sentence to someone robbing a church than the same crime committed against a private home?
Sandra Nikkel, Ministry Coordinator of the Grand Rapids East Classis and Pastor of the multicultural Ministry at Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church, responds:
“Giving a harsher punishment to someone robbing a church sounds pious but it contradicts the call for equality that defines justice. When a private home is robbed an unjust act has taken place the same is true if a church is robbed. Giving a lesser punishment to the one who robs a home would be unjust. Therefore a judge who gives a harsher sentence to someone robbing a church than the one robbing a private home is at best a religious judge not a just one. The caveat here is that religiosity does not equate justice. Religion does not necessarily lead to equality and justice. In fact, Church history proves that religious leaders are not always the just ones. This is why Christ often confronted the religious leaders of his time.”
Fred Wooden, the senior pastor of Fountain Street Church, responds:
“In principle it would be hard to levy a tougher sentence because it was a religious place and gathering. I do, however, see this as similar to schools and hospitals because they are places where people expect, and have a right to expect, to be safer. Much as we lament how schools have become dangerous, a world where religious gatherings are seen as opportunities for mayhem - something seen in other parts of the world sadly - tells us that something more basic is changing. Nothing is 'sacred' now, off limits or so despicable even criminals will not do it. Laws and sentences cannot change that on their own. It will take more than the law to restore what is missing.”
Is there really a Biblical argument to be made for handing down a higher penalty to stealing from an institution of God than stealing from a human being? Leviticus 5:14-16 establishes a penalty of 20% for stealing from God’s sacred things. However, Leviticus 5:20-26 establishes the same 20% penalty for theft, robbery, or fraud against one’s fellow human being. In both cases, there is an additional penalty of a sacrificial animal payable to the Temple, to make expiation for his crime. It seems that whether the stolen property came from a religious institution or from a secular institution, Leviticus ultimately believes that the offense is against God, but the property itself belongs to a person or an incorporation of people. One way or another, both in the case of crime against a church or crime against a drug store, the crime is against flesh and blood human beings. Whether the robbery was of a convenience store, a private home, or a movie theater, we deserve to feel safe in all of these places no less than as if we were in a house of worship. It is the responsibility of the justice system to enforce the laws and to create a safe society.
Ethics and Religion Talk is seeking your sincere questions about issues of ethics and religion. We have addressed questions of theology and religious practice, contemporary ethical questions in the news, and the small questions of everyday ethical situations. The questions should be open ended (i.e., not yes or no questions).
The intent of the questions should be to foster learning and conversation, rather than to push a specific agenda. The questions should be able to be answered by multiple members of the panel (i.e., it should not be intended solely for the Moslem or the Catholic panelist, for example).
Send your questions to EthicsandReligionTalk@gmail.com or Ethics and Religion Talk, Mlive Media Group, 169 Monroe NW, Suite 100, Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
Ethics and Religion Talk is compiled and written by David Krishef, rabbi at Congregation Ahavas Israel in Grand Rapids. Krishef takes questions from readers and shares them with a panel of clergy, then provides the responses in collaboration with community engagement specialist Zane McMillin. The views expressed are those of the panelists and do not necessarily represent the official perspectives of their congregations or denominations. Please submit questions from your own day-to-day encounters to EthicsAndReligionTalk@gmail.com.